Live data from Hacker News

Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

wsj.com

1–10 of 315 posts

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#7
This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later?

I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodgeball. (For those who don't remember, it was a company basically like Foursquare, but years before. Google bought it and did little with it. Eventually the founders got tired of it, left Google, and started the same company again.)

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#8

Does anyone know if going dockless increases ridership in any significant way? The consumer benefits seem great but it seems like such a nightmare to maintain compared to a docking system.

Just the other day I saw some very dubious people on BART with dockless bikes. I had to wonder if there's a good secondary market in bike parts that makes those things worth stealing.

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#9

Does anyone know if going dockless increases ridership in any significant way? The consumer benefits seem great but it seems like such a nightmare to maintain compared to a docking system.

Data point of one here, but docked bike share programs are a novelty for me, maybe useful on occasional weekends, but dockless makes it viable for replacing almost all use of public transit and ride sharing, including (especially) daily commute. Orders of magnitude difference in my personal usage.

Re: Uber enters dockless bike wars with Jump acquisition

#10
post #7

This is a puzzle to me. Uber faces some critical issues ahead. If they can solve them, the bikes will be a rounding error. If they can't, the bike business won't be enough to save them. Why add the complexity when they could buy or build something later? I especially can't figure out why the Jump CEO would do it. The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small. It reminds me of something like Dodg…

   The odds of their work surviving to the 10 year mark seems so small.
Are you sure that the odds are worse than surviving the 10 year mark without an acquisition? Would hardly be the first time someone sold because they simply couldn't make the growth math work, and they were all out of good options for financing.
Post reply on HN